TIMESTAMPS: 0:00 - Introduction 0:10 - Subjective (qualitative) vs objective (quantitative) experience 3:34 - The false mind-matter dichotomy 10:26 - Scientism & Religion 16:32 - Analytic Idealism 21:41 - Objective Idealism vs [Goff's] Panpsychism & other forms of Idealism (e.g. quasi-Berkleyan Idealism etc.) 29:39 - [Karl Popper's] Falsifiability theory (science vs pseudoscience) & its implications for Objective Idealism's explanatory power 41:07 - Idealism vs Illusionism [Seth, Frankish, Graziano, Dennett] 52:41 - Bernardo's Philosophical history of the Mind-Body Problem [Berkeley, Kant, Nietzsche, Schopenhauer, Jung] 1:00:29 - Decoding Carl Jung & Arther Schopenhauer's metaphysics 1:12:03 - Applying Idealism practically in a clinical setting 1:22:58 - Idealism's impact on ethics, morality, spirituality & life after death 1:35:30 - Best counter arguments to Idealism 1:44:00 - How can we take one step closer to the Mind-Body Solution 1:51:42 - Conclusion THANKS FOR WATCHING! If you enjoyed the content, please like this video, subscribe to the channel and turn on notifications for future updates. :)
Bernardo was a crucial force who has woken me up from my deep slumber of materialism. And for that I'm very grateful. A revolutionary and giant thinker has arisen.
@@Metanoia99 I thought Chomsky, Robinson and Strawson (among others) settle the matter of consciousness for those who can break out of perception/awareness = soul nonsense.
Thank you for this interview. Bernardo has tons of interviews online, but in this one you have managed to structure the conversation in a way that is very suitable for people who still have no idea about his views. Also thanks a lot for timestamps, they are always very helpful! I am looking forward to your next conversations with him :)
Dr N -- thanks for encouraging me to give your Kastrup interview a listen. It was worthwhile. :-) I DO agree with some of what Bernardo says in his criticism of the starting point of materialism. All our starting point data is experiences -- everything else that we "know" is abstract postulations. Many materialists now pretend otherwise -- implying that somehow we have direct access to "know" there is matter. When direct realism is challenged, most materialists will back off on the claim, but then when not challenged, they seem to presume it anyway. If one is not presuming direct realism, than one CANNOT viably pretend we don't have experiences! I also agree with Bernardo's latest metaphor of a "dashboard" being presented to our consciousness. Yes, our sensor systems collect a lot of data, then it is digested down, and we perceive a very simplified summary, However, rather than a "dashboard" I prefer Eagleman's model of a "stage" -- as what we are presented is far from standardized like a dashboard, and some of what we are presented is just hints and innuendo of something, rather than an actual observation. I also agree with Bernardo that both dualism and idealism can be empirical, and science. And that the name-calling that physicalists sometimes resort to, is a moral failing on their part. However, I once more pretty quickly run into a significant dispute with Bernardo over what science is. Bernardo refers to science as being "quantitative". Karl Popper put a great deal of effort into defining what science is, and isn't -- and "quantitative" does not cover the sciences of anthropology, or psychology, or psychology. Much of what science studies is quantitative, but that does not encompass science. Bernardo also presumed that science necessarily was reductive. Yet science can be holistic, emergent, or pluralist -- none of which are reductive. Also, science could be recast into processes rather than objects, per Whitehead, then the reduction could be to a completely orthogonal concept of processes. Bernardo's view of science was something he referred to several times. AFTER he attacked materialism, and considered it refuted by test cases, he then evaded testing by declaring that his "objective idealism" was "metaphysics" and therefore not quantitative and not subject to testing. BUT -- materialism is also a metaphysical theory, and he claimed it was FALSE!! He also said that any metaphysics that is contradicted, is wrong, -- which is explicitly "testing" He also said that "Objective idealism" matches all data -- which is explicitly a set of predictions that he is saying are confirmed. In my book review of Materialism is Baloney, I noted that Kastrup applied testing to materialism, and claimed it was refuted, but then tried to engage in definitional gamesmanship to try to avoid testing his views. This tactic was continued in your interview. Popper, of course, did not limit testing to science, just as Bernardo does not. And Popper considered science to just be specialty areas of philosophy, so there should be no difference in procedure that one applies to science vs philosophy. I will just apply Popepr's far clearer understanding of science and philosophy, and their boundaries, and apply testing to Bernardo's views. I will re-cite the two tests I cited in my book review: a) if experience is fundamental, and we can reduce our world to them, we should then be able to define and find these experiences. Bernardo says that there are such things as fundamental sweetness, orangeness, fearness, etc. So, we should be able to build up a worldview from these fundamental mental predicates, that would then explain the physical to us. This WAS tested once, as the Phenomenalist movement in the turn of the 1900s also asserted the primacy of mental building blocks. But those early psychologists were unsuccessful in agreeing about what the mental building blocks even were, as the different researchers pronounced their introspection gave different answers from each other. So -- this process of reducing matter to experiences failed one, why should we expect this to be a viable answer today? b) If the brain is a reflection of mind, then mind should be a set which exceeds brain. But 99% of brain function is unconscious -- IE unconscious brain processing seems to exceed conscious mind by orders of magnitude, contradicting a first order inference from this thesis. It was not explicit in your interview, but at least at the time of Materialism is Baloney, Bernardo was an advocate of the "filter" theory of mind, in which there is a Mind at Large, and all consciousnesses can access this Mind at Large, and our brain primarily acts as a filter to limit the sensory overload that full contact with Mind at Large would lead to. I will post a set of test cases I proposed to the similar "filter theory" claims of Beyond Physicalism: Filter Theory of Mind. If Filter theory is true, I would expect the following to be the case: 1. Neruology should be organized primarily to be exclusionary of non-sensory data, rather than integrative and focused on sense data 2. Creatures that lack a sense organ should often be able to compensate with direct knowledge of what is being sensed despite the lack of any sensors 3. Remote viewing and telepathy should be common capabilities, and strong, for humans and animals, and amplified/tuned to be highly effective by evolutionary processes 4. Remote viewing and telepathy should be most apparent in living things with simple neurology 5. Remote viewing and telepathy should be least present in living things with the most complex and largest brains, since in filter theory brains exist to PREVENT these activities. I think that predictions 1-3 are falsified, 4 and 5 its not as clear, but it is likely they are too. Recall the reason that Popper advocated for falsifiability rather than verification as the core methodology of science, is that basically everything can find at least SOME verifications. And we humans are basically hard wired to engage in confirmation bias, so a few confirmations are often taken as definitive justification of our views. Bernardo, in this interview, looked for confirmations of idealism. He did not look for falsifications, and in fact denied that he even should! But the rest of us need to look for falsifications, as there are multitudes of conflicting claims out there, and most are wrong, and we need to sort poor theories from better ones. With just a little effort, i have offered 5-7 falsifications of Bernardo's model. I encourage other readers and listeners to add to this list. IF Bernardo wants to continue to claim to be doing science, THEN he should be addressing these falsifications as challenges, that his theory must accommodate.
Thanks for checking it out and letting me know your thoughts. This Monday an episode called "A Crash Course in Analytic Idealism" is being released. Bernardo's "Round 2". We address some of the points you brought up (however not all). These comments are great though because I make notes and try and address them in future interviews/conversations. Thanks again!
@@drtevinnaidu DrN -- I am glad you are finding my commentary interesting, and I will look for your second interview with Bernardo. I also heard him invite you to challenge him, so I expect you to be a bit more aggressive in your questions ;-). You ask your guests who the influences on them were, and my approach to philosophy is primarily based on Socrates and Popper. Socrates taught us to try to identify and examine the walls of the boxes we think within, And Popper taught us to try to identify falsification tests for them. I tend to read very critically, and put some effort into identifying suspect assumptions that a philosopher or scientist has not been explicit about, then figure out if this assumption is universally valid by doing falsification tests by example. I have been slowly paging thru your interviews, and fear my critical test cases are too late for most of your second interviews, as they were for Bernardo. :-( Rounding out my 5 influences, I would add Descartes, the most famous advocate of the most useful modality to address mind/body, and Ben Swett, a gnostic mystic who taught me how to do practical mysticism, plus has the clearest advocacy of a Love Virtue ethic I have found. Final one -- not sure. maybe Popper again, with his emphasis on uncertainty, or Godel with his demonstration of the limits of rationality, or Lakatos with his Research Programme patch to falsifiability (falsifiability is refuted, but remains a good first approximation of how we should act), or the founders of Pragmatism from the 1800s, as the alternative to rationalism.
I always love listening to Bernardo. This time I was really impressed by the well structured conversation and the good questions on the interviewers side and Bernardos touching honesty and openness even about very private topics on the other side. ♥ Looking very much forward to part 2!
@@drtevinnaidu Sure! Working as an Integral Coach, I'm deep into Ken Wilbers Integral Approach both from a theoretical and practical (application in self-development, spiritual practice and organization development) perspective. So my question to Bernardo would be, how he relates to Ken Wilber and his Integral Model. From my perspective, Analytical Idealism in no way contradicts Wilber (or vice versa), but rather both approaches complement each other perfectly. Maybe Idealism more on the abstract theoretical metaphysical side, Integral Theory more on a broader, integrating and applicable side (I might be wrong, I'm not a studied philosopher). I'd be curious on the perspective of both of you on this!
@@drtevinnaidu Another topic I find very interesting in relation to Idealism is the whole discussion about homeopathy. You already spoke about the placebo effect, I'd be curious about both of your view on if or how homeopathic substances can possibly work.
Speaking of pilots tripping out when subjected to g forces, the number one cause of pilot accidents today is actually out-of-body experiences. Often the pilots will report themselves as outside the cockpit, or sitting on the wing looking at themselves. (imagine hearing that from a pilot over the airport radio xD)
A few years ago Bernardo opened my eyes to idealism and made me a fan. It's good to see his ideas have not only stood the test of time, but are still evolving along the same trajectory. It's a shame similar non-material idiologies like Panpsychism have been written off as mystisism.
That's purpose of this podcast. An exploration of all ideologies related to consciousness - irrespective of my own views. I hope this channel continues to allow all these diverse views to be explored by those who don't adopt them and flourish for those who do!
I also had a revelation upon hearing Bernardo's views. As a Christian I had always been at odds with the arrogance of scientific atheism, Bernardo's views while not religious per se, do leave room for "God". I can reconcile my idea of God and the universe in Bernardo's world.
Bernardo's arguements against materialism/physicalism are outstanding. I'm very thankful for his work. That said, his claims that a materialist is less afraid of death than a religious person are shockingly simplistic. He has no data or arguments for this but he stresses it constantly. I have ideas as to why he gets hung up on this but I'm curious to hear a wider range of thoughts.
@Dean Mitchell Hi Dean. I see the point you are making, but it sort of misses what I'm talking about a little bit. There are certainly some issues that are about resonating with a person's attitude or way of going about things. I get that, fully. To the degree that Bernardo is simply saying, "I personally find materialism to be very relieving," I get it and I also know some people that share that view. I'm not talking about the interesting way that we can all have unique subjective reactions to various world-views. I'm talking about the narrow cases in which Bernardo makes the explicit claim that materialism culturally was a huge relief for people, which is a key motivation for embracing it. When I say that he does not justify this specific generalization, I'm definitely not talking about his personal experience that Idealism makes him more afraid of death. I could have been more clear. Thanks for responding.
@Dean Mitchell Oh, I agree. Bernardo will be remembered (or not, who knows) for the arguments he makes against physicalism and for analytical idealism. His views about psychology and war and what causes this and that are utterly irrelevant. That said, he has a growing audience, so I think pushing back against claims he repeatedly makes about large swaths of people/groups is fair. But I agree it is nothing compared to dealing with his philosophical/scientific arguments. By the way, I LOVE the way Benardo talked about illusionism in this talk. In the past, he tends to spend a lot of time speculating on how crazy or greedy these thinkers must be, but today he really found a nice balance. In my conversations with Keith Frankish, it was very helpful to finally realize that all he is really saying is that most of our IDEAS *about* consciousness are misguided. He fully agrees consciousness is real, he simply points out that we mostly speak about in the wrong way. The problem is that it is so hard to get any attention in philosophy if you don't make your claims as sexy as possible. It certainly makes for great headlines when somebody says consciousness is't real or is an illusion. However, everytime you drill down, you see they aren't dealing with the actual question, they are simply saying that some ideas about consciousness are wrong. I fully sympathize with the need to find an audience and try to speak compellingly.
He's great at regurgitating philosophical speculation on materialism. He's terrible at proposing an alternative. His formulations of idealism are some of the most naive and simplistic out there and the dopes that fall for it are all tripping psychedelics a little too much.
@@rooruffneck It shouldn't surprise anybody if his arguments are tenuous, he's arguing for a hypothesis that doesn't have a speck of scientific evidence to support it.
I find that my materialist friends are as equally calm and horrified about the fact of death as my religious/spiritual friends. I think there are utterly no arguments that actually indicate materialism -- on the whole -- creates relief from this fear, just as I see no evidence that -- on the whole -- religious belief causes more fear than deep hope regarding death. We are much more complex with regard to this fear than Bernardo suggests. But I do see how his claims have a tribal resonance in the idealism/materialism war camps.
I've been thinking the same thing as well for some years now but I can't imagine or visualize how mind would make matter. Also "mind" probably isn't a great word to call what we think is fundamental. I think we need a new word and new concepts to discuss this topic. I think this is one of those "We don't know what we don't know" situation.
Another great interview...Binging with Bernardo Kastrup is repetition is recognition and with a varity of host becomes so informative and just awesome. TY
@@drtevinnaidu at 79 approaching 80, I am so grateful to be able to Self Realize death is like awakening from a dream. I have believed in our deepest sleep we are closest to God (of our understanding) and our fondest dreams are created by our nightmares. A airplane is off course 80 to 90% of time and always reaches it's destination..When aligned with nature you become aligned. Wishing you Well. I have worked with the dying for 20 years.. and love Nature.
1.27.50 Before material girl ,Madonna,there was another pop-rock icon much more important musically ,imo, in a totally different state of consciousness,who has said: "“I remember thinking I just want more. This isn’t it. Fame is not the goal. Money is not the goal. To be able to know how to get peace of mind, how to be happy, is something you don’t just stumble across. You’ve got to search for it.” ""It was important to me rather than pursuing an other million dollars,or having another hit record,was to find out who am i,where i have come from and where i am going.. I pursued that led me to India." -George Harrison Thanks for having Bernardo!
If there is an objective, purely mental non-physical world out there prior to measurement (which, per Bernard, becomes physical upon measurement), then where is it, given that universal mind is timeless and spaceless? The quantum scientific experiments he talks about are dependent upon physical apparatus that, per Bernard, has no stand-alone objective existence. So how can results from them prove that physical existence only manifests upon, and not prior to, measurement? Moreover, if the physical doesn’t exist prior being measured, how can you measure something that doesn’t exist, and then, magically, have it physically manifest?
Here's a continuation of my response: Just because the universe is in, and of (or derives from), universal consciousness, or mind, does not mean it can't be physical. Matter is nothing but congealed energy, and consciousness is energy (though Bernard doesn't seem to grok this). Hence, the physical is real (even before being measured), and this in no way contradicts universal mind as the all-subsuming primitive. Finally, the fact that matter, per Bernardo, is not really physical, but simply how we perceive what is mental, implies that our senses are faulty and invalid. If this is the case, then everything everyone knows is faulty and invalid, because all our entire mental knowledge derives from interaction with sense-based phenomena.
Thanks for the talk but I still have so many questions! How is it one can make progress in, for example, medicine and the natural sciences generally by working on the "representation" of the real thing? A brain, for example, neurons or glia, which are only the appearance on our screen of perception of something mental, mental processes, which through our dissociative barrier (senses) appear to be a brain or neurons?! How is it that science working on "physical stuff" (that are only representations) can find truths, predictions and work through medication and treatments? Thanks Bernardo and Tevin for this great talk! 🌿
@@drtevinnaidu I have a question... If 50,000 idealists attend a baseball game, do they all simultaneously create the baseball game with their consciousnesses, or do they pick one person to do it?
An attempted joke. (Do not know what a nocebo is - it may be your original creation.) So, here goes: 'Things possible - could occur. But there is also every possibility - of something impossible - occurring.' (An idea from Raja Yoga - Ram Chandra)
What is your hope for people, Bernado, to use what you share? I think it is important to state what your purpose is. Other than making your case, your argument. Other than people to agree with you or understand it. What is your offering about my friend?? ... With love
Looking forward to the next episode, which sounds great. This chapter is also fascinating. I will point out that if you are looking for historical figures with an idealistic worldview, you can find a significant school of thought in the history of Jewish thought. Spinoza did not emerge from a vacuum... For example, at the beginning of the twentieth century the leading rabbinic figure in the Jewish people and Zionism - Rabbi Kook - was a philosopher who enthusiastically preached his version of idealism, and so on.
At first I wanted to say I think the dashboard analogy is bad because (certainly) if you could see out the windows of the plane, you would do so. So this would indicate there is a benefit to seeing "everything" (through the windows) as opposed to a distilled version (dashboard). I then realized the instruments are giving you MORE information than what you could see out the windows... and at night or in bad weather, they are your only hope... so they should be of primary importance. In other words, while it is true the combination of both windows and dashboard is ultimately the best, the dashboard is ultimately more useful in an arbitrary situation. If planes were subject to natural selection, and making windows was expensive enough, this would favor planes without windows. However, it would not mea that planes with windows and a dashboard (the full view) would be unable to fly, or somehow turn into soup... or be less capable than one without windows.
Criticism is the engine of progress. Yes! More than that, you will never understand that the Mind Matter transformation does occur at every fraction of a second. Therefore the change is happening every fraction of time. So uncertainty and destruction of matter and creating of matter. But we never see the relationship that process has with the Mind. In this world, everything is Mind.
The simplest way to think about this is to realize that Things do not exist, in the sense that “existence” is normally construed. Any Thing is a result of some other Thing. A pencil used to be a tree. What was a tree? So, Things are not “real” because they are becoming perpetually, and existence implies an eternal, or at least a consistent, property. A body is composed of many Things. Or is it one Thing? It doesn’t matter, does it. There is nothing consistent about it. This is true for all Things. Now consider your soul, spirit or consciousness. Your awareness itself. These are of a different nature. Even though we live our lives in days, our thoughts, dreams, ambitions and perceptions convince us that we exist as a consistent entity for years and decades. Do we transcend what we really are, or are we really what we think?
54:00 BK speaks about endogenous experiential states vs exogenous (perceptual) experiential states. But then the question arises. Can one even imagine an endogenously experienced state without a simultaneous, or preceded by, some form of perception of an exogenously experienced state? Are endogenous and exogenous qualia at the same ontological level, or is one or the other at a higher level in the hierarchy of experienced patterns?
I suspect that either consciousness doesn't actually exist; OR consciousness is all that exists. I also suspect that these two possibilities may be phenomenologically indistinguishable.
Indeed. And the Black ones too. Have a nice collection at home. Glad you're conversing with Philibuster92. Use this platform to connect with like minded souls!💙
Dr. Naidu, if you're interested in the cutting edge of philosophy applied to psychology, check out what John Vervaeke and friends are doing with his "psyhepathology" series, going on now. Brilliant new models for approaching the issues of consciousness in psychology that you mentioned. Thanks for your efforts!
@@drtevinnaidu oh that's awesome!! Looking forward to it. Yea I'm really quite blown away by the detail and proficiency of their discussions in the "psychepathology" project. They're already developing useful models for clinical psychology.
so if my brain is the outside view of my ego mind, then when i'm in meditation and my ego disolves, does my brain also disolve?..Zen masters have no brain?
No brain doesnot dissolve with ego.. 😂 Only ego dissolves and you realize yourself as a being which is alive, conscious, sentient, with a body, mind, intelligence, sensory perceptions and experiences.. Not a person(ego)
I guess I was lucky to grow up in the 50s and 60s when it was OK to be interested in spirituality and be scientific as well. Using an aircraft as an example of Plato's cave is a good one - but without that dashboard we'd probably be less successful at survival/reproduction. I wonder if animals need that dashboard or if without being burdened with an ego and "higher" intellectual processes they interact with things as they are more easily? When I was a kid it never occurred to anyone to cut off blood to the brain... that's crazy! We'd play the fainting game by hyperventilating, then taking a deep breath, then your friend would wrap their arms around you from behind and squeeze. The hyperoxygenation would make you faint for a few seconds. The only danger was if you fell and hit your head, and usually someone was there to catch you. There's records of this activity going back into antiquity.
Bernardo is correct about consciousness being fundamental however, almost everything after that is his model that has many flaws the biggest being free will ….without free will consciousness doesn’t make sense. free will is foundational for us to make choices and these choices are how we function. He has his one foot firmly planted in materialism, which is completely contradictory to idealism, which is the foundation of consciousness being fundamental.
My view is that the experience of "free will" is, in the same way as "space-time", a useful representation for survival, and does not necessarily exist at the most fundamental level.
@@goran586"My" view is consciousness is fundamental and the main function of consciousness is to makes free will choices that change us for better (evolve) or worse(de evolve).In essence free will is fundamental to consciousnessand if there were no free will choices we are algorithmically programed and our existence serves no purpose.We are all part of a consciousness system/network and our teleology is to evolve.
Dr Kastrup: If “particles” are ripples in the ocean of consciousness- which of itself has no boundaries- then what agent makes those ripples? Do the ripples- as in us humans in particular- have any free will? Are all ripples just directed actors - for a time - in Indra’s dream?
Bernardo often attributes this line of questioning to our innate tendency to reach "closure". But with the metaphysical concept of consciousness and mind-at-large, there is no need for closure. It's all there is. It creates the reality in which you decide to navigate your/our limited egocentric or ego-conscious thoughts in shifting lucid awareness towards one or the other, instead of just existing. Language unfortunately does not help explain it, it's an experiential concept.
Yes, Reality "is" Consciousness. To use a metaphor from the Upanishads, imagine a multitude of clay pots with varying sizes, shapes, and functions, but all made of clay Clay is the Substance (Spinoza's term) all the pots, the Essence being Pure Consciousness. Materialists observe the various sizes and shapes mistakenly believing such appearances to be fundamental. However, logic and mathematics will not get you to a direct nondual experience of the underlying reality. There are various methods for doing this derived from ancient Buddhism and Hinduism. Shankara's Advaita Vedanta (788-820) covers the topic quite well with predicates going back to Aristotle, Plato, Plotinus, and Nargajuna (150-250), as well to Lao Tzu..
What Bernardo is saying is exactly what i have felt during my satori/enlightment. Objective idealism is the truth about our universe. You dont have to believe me, you can try it out for yourself by meditating. (use psychedelics for faster/easier progress) 😂🎉
The guy is an absolute class act. It’s probably my third comment on this podcast but I just watched it again. He also happens to be right. I wonder what he makes of people like Manly P Hall, or even people like joe Dispenza who has been helping people bring about spontaneous healing. Very much like Jesus and Buddha have been two of the greatest “molders” of this “VR world.” It’s like there are cheat codes/Easter eggs for the “dashboard.” I’d like to know how he compares these capabilities with psychedelics? Are they different sides of the same coin, or two different phenomena Thanks again. Donald Hofmann is next! Have another free hour or so ❤
I don’t think psychedelic research Implies what I think he’s suggesting. There may be a reduction in neuronal activity globally but I think the perceived expansion of consciousness will map onto a particular suite of complex novel neuronal behaviour
My brain screams at me presuppositionist because the way he argues . What presups usually do is, assume the conclusion , then gaslight , special plead , and complete the circle . Coming merely from the scientific method as a base , he have the observations, he have the hypothesis, but no way to test for it in order to confirm or deny it is the case - unfelsifible claim . Metaphysical realism sounds very similar to simulation theory , brain in a jar and other claims alike .Here is where my shtick is . Let's assume that any of those ideas are the case . So what ? Untill we have a way out , " cheat code" of sorts or work around , we remain bound to its laws and are to deal with it on the daily .Although fun to ponder it is of no use 🤷🏻♂️
@Dean Mitchell again , materialism is merely a laible that reffers to what we experience as reality, regardless of what it actually is. So it cannot be flawed . The rest of things you listed are found in ppl whom do not hold the worldview of metaphysical realism, meaning , one needs not to adopt those beliefs, in order to posses those qualities. The whole thing is just an addon that is extra to anything else we already have knowlage of and on top of it all , is unfelsifible claim . Just see no use of it in my life 🤷🏻♂️
@Dean Mitchell So we don't work with certainty, but levels of confidence. Knowlage is the highest of confidences we can have about a thing , based on facts about reality, regardless of opinion and regardless of what reality actually is . We have learned to understand its workings ( for the most part ) and find it relible , as evident by the progress achieved so far . So the scientific method is the most reliable method trough which we obtain knowlge . That is not to say it is perfect , or that there aren't other methods that might work , being though not as reliable. The point is , since has become the " go to " , when it comes to confidence in understanding of how the " reality we are bound by , works . As you said though , I agree , if it works for you , so be it
@Dean Mitchell Is science- the most reliable method for determining of what is true, cannot tell us of what reality is , it'll be anyone's guess. After all , if we don't know , we don't know . Let's not fill the gaps in our knowlage with unfelsifible claims it is pointless
Bernardo is doing metaphysics...which is trickier than science. But saying that "So what," because you don't see an immediate payoff is shortsighted. Likewise, saying that it's "unfalsifiable" and therefore not worthy of pursuit is unscientific. One week before the Wright brothers first flight the most prominent scientist in the world said that humans would NEVER achieve heavier than air flight. I can't imagine how many "impossible" things have been done.
He states very early on that he believes that he is surrounded by a world consisting of matter ("in the colloquial sense"). So how is he not a "materialist"? This is exactly what a typical materialist believes. He then proceeds to go through a lot of verbal and intellectual gymnastics to contend that materialism is something else, in order to refute it. I am so confused by this.
"the cat doesn't KNOW that he's tasting the food" ~ this sounds like a preference of belief, not a provable fact. by degrees. have you never seen a cat exhibit a preference? Bernardo needs to spend some time witnessing interesting examples of what sometimes appears to be a sort of 'higher consciousness' in certain examples animals. Including animals seeming to appear to have very human-like / soul-like / extra-aware interaction/expression with this world...
"The first thing is that in this world, matter and consciousness are not two separate things. What we call matter is consciousness asleep, and what we know as consciousness is matter awakened. In reality matter and consciousness are not different; they are different manifestations of the same thing. Existence is one, and that one is godliness or brahman or whatsoever you want to call it. When that one is asleep it appears as matter, and when awake it is consciousness. So don’t treat matter and consciousness as separate entities; they are only utilitarian terms. They are not really different. Even science has come to the conclusion that there is no such thing as matter. How amusing it is that fifty years ago Nietzsche declared that God is dead, and fifty years from now science will have to declare that God may or may not be dead but matter is certainly dead. As science goes deeper and deeper into matter it finds that matter is no more and only energy remains, only energy is. What remains after the explosion or splitting of the atom is only particles of energy. And what we know as electrons, protons and neutrons are particles of electricity. In fact, it is not correct to call them particles, because particles imply matter. The scientists had to find a new word, which is quanta, which has a different connotation altogether. Quanta is both a particle and a wave. It is difficult to comprehend how something could be both a particle and a wave simultaneously, but quanta is both. Sometimes it behaves as a particle - which is matter; and sometimes it behaves as a wave - which is energy. Wave and energy are behaviors of the same quanta. When science dug deep it found that only energy is, and when spirituality delved deep it found that only spirit or atman or soul is. And soul is energy. The time is just around the corner when a synthesis of science and religion will be achieved, and the distance that separates them will simply disappear. When the gap between matter and truth has proved to be false, the gap between science and religion cannot exist for long. If matter and consciousness are not two, how can religion and science be two? The separation of science and religion was dependent on the separation of matter and consciousness. To me, only one is; two simply don’t exist. There is no place for duality; so the question of matter and consciousness does not arise. If you like the language of matter, you can say that everything is matter. And if you like the language of consciousness, you can say that everything is consciousness. I for one prefer the language of consciousness. Why do I prefer it? Because, in my view, one should always prefer the language of the higher, which has greater potential; one should not prefer the language of the lower, where potential is less and less. We can, for instance, say that only the seed is, and not the tree. And it is not incorrect to say that, because the tree is only a transformation of the seed. But there is a danger involved in this statement. The danger is that some seeds may say, “If we are seeds all the way, then why seek to become trees? We will remain as we are; we will remain seeds.” So it is better if we say that only trees are, and not seeds. Then the possibility for the seed to become a tree remains. I prefer the language of consciousness, so that what is asleep can awaken - this possibility should be available. There is a similarity between the materialist and the spiritualist; both of them accept only one - either matter or consciousness. But there is a difference too. While the materialist accepts the first thing and is thus deprived of the ultimate, the spiritualist accepts the ultimate which includes the first in it. It is all-inclusive; it does not exclude. I love the language of spirituality, and therefore I say that everything is consciousness. Consciousness asleep is matter, and consciousness awakened is consciousness. All is consciousness."
Have you ever wondered why intelligent peoples cling to so many different beliefs? A mathematician believes reality IS maths, a physicist believes reality is a pantheon of laws and equations ruling over a zoo of particles, amongst philosophers and theists so much variety of beliefs. Have you noticed that all their beliefs in one way or another are constructed (they were not born with them:) these beliefs (constructions/house of cards) are defended by these intelligent peoples have you noticed? Could be a priest a guru a physicist a philosopher a neuroscientist even your mum or dad:) Have you noticed how none of them want to let go of their beliefs, their models, their interpretation of reality/truth at all costs? Surely they can not all be correct? I have a name for this behaviour it’s called SELF DECEPTION :) self deception is your biggest obstacle to Truth, Truth being “that which is the case” . I suggest all these super intelligent peoples you interview are all self deceived. The reason 99.9 % of peoples are self deceived about reality/truth/that is survival. Humans evolutionary success is because we can not just bullshit ourselves, but we can group together and share bullshit (culture:). Truth will kill you :) it’s not something trivial :)
totally agree. I'm writing about this right now actually, our belief systems act like anchoring points for our ego. And our egos are directly tied to survival mechanisms via comparison of onesself to others.
@@polymathpark my 2 cents:) the ego, YOU are an idea 💡:) it started when you was a child and someone gave you a toy you said "MY toy" :) me my MINE! That's all YOU are:) you are an idea that has high jacked an impersonal subjective field of subjectivity and its activity :)
@@mrbwatson8081 nice. We do go through a very definite phase of possession between 2-3 years of age, where we deem everything we can see and touch as "mine"... The terrible two's lol
@@polymathpark I learned a lot about my ego with magic mushrooms:) a few years ago I took a big dose I was in my living room on my sofa. I sat with my eyes closed waiting for the effects but the whole time I was waiting I was just begging and begging almost 😢 asking myself what am I? An about 3 hours later I came out the trip woke my girlfriend up frantically yelling at her "EVERYTHING IS ME! I AM NOTHING:) I kept repeating it I had literally experienced Everything being me :) sounds mad but it's true;)
@@TheWorldTeacher We will just have to disagree...but you can't dismiss a whole school of philosophical thought by saying it ain't necessarily so...let's have a counter argument.
@@TheWorldTeacher Still no counter argument. You are being disrespectful...and highlighting your lack of understanding of philosophical or scientific perspectives. My guess is that your just a RUclips charlatan.
@@TheWorldTeacher I think your rudeness is due to the fact that you don't even know what eliminative materialism is. In fact I don't think you know anything about philosophy...just your own perverse opinions...based on nothing but your own imagination.
Schopenhauer was another reductionist. Poor poodles. And it was good that Schop didn’t have kids, imagine three Johns or three Clementines. This kind of thinking is even dangerous from a social point of view.
wow, Haven't listen to such bad philosophy for years! I thought we were done making unfalsifiable claims about reality by declaring abstract concepts as "beings" or agents while they are nothing more that labels for actual processes in nature.
Superficially, Bernardo Kastrup SEEMS to be promulgating the most ancient spiritual teaching of Advaita Vedanta (as found in the Upanishadic texts of India) but due to reasons I won't go into at length here, his understanding is rather flawed. If one carefully listens to any of his monologues or interview videos, it is obvious (at least it is obvious to those who are truly enlightened) that he regularly confuses and conflates discrete consciousness (as emerging from the neural networks of animals) and UNIVERSAL Consciousness (which is the all-pervasive, eternal ground of all being, more appositely termed "The Tao", "Brahman" or "Infinite Awareness"). He also believes in (limited) freedom of volition, which is, of course, ludicrous, and his understanding of suffering is truly infantile, which is unfortunate, since the eradication of suffering is the goal of life. In order to PROPERLY understand the distinction between the two aforementioned categories of consciousness, you are welcome to email me for a copy of "A Final Instruction Sheet for Humanity", which are the most authoritative and accurate precepts extant. My address is on my RUclips homepage. However, my main criticism of Kastrup is not with his metaphysics, it is, rather, his METAETHICS. He is, objectively speaking, afflicted with a demonic mentality, as demonstrated with his support of all things contrary to Dharma (the law, and societal duties), such as egalitarianism, feminism, homosexuality, and socialism. In a recent interview, for example, he displayed abject ignorance when discussing the topic of animal consumption. Hopefully, he will one day realize how incredibly hypocritical he is in this regards, and become a compassionate VEGAN. 🌱 After all, to criticize Bernardo for his teachings being only, let's say, ninety percent accurate, would be silly, since, compared with almost every other person who has ever lived, his philosophical understanding is fairly sound. Yet, what is the point of being even TOTALLY correct about metaphysics, when one's metaethics and normative ethics is fundamentally flawed? Furthermore, Bernardo has admitted that he has struggled with mental health issues for several decades. I would suggest he flee to the loving arms of an ACTUAL spiritual master in order to learn Dharma (as well, of course, correct his flawed metaphysics). Peace!
Bernardo says a neural network is an image or representation of a process in consciousness. According to Bernardo a neural network IS consciousness. Bernardo has NEVER claimed consciousness “emerges” 🤭
Bernado makes silly philosophical errors that people have already addressed and successfully attempted to resolve in the past. He says that the representation of the perceiver (the subject) is made of particles but not the referent of this representation itself. That goes against the entire history of science and the assumptions that medical practices presuppose. The treatment for cancer is not devised based on any kind of holistic idea of the body, but on the particular atomistic characteristics of the cancerous cells and their reactive potentials to different kinds of chemicals. If he claims these little cells are in themselves representations of mental processes, then why not just admit the panpsychist claim that every cell in one's body is also primordially mental and consequently physical (to put it in Whitehead's terminology). He throws out the reality of the physical without reasonable justification (just an anti-realist interpretation of QM does not cut it, because Bernado clearly doesn't understand Bohmian mechanics as evident from his blog posts). The latter seems to account for radically emergent phenomena while avoiding the old problem of teleology. I mean, life itself emerged and survives due to radically contingent events like the formation of water, a compound constituted of hydrogen and oxygen atoms. Engineer-turned-Metaphysicians like him should be careful about being too confident, because he's clearly overlooking a whole range of 'matter' that sciences other than physics are concerned with (like chemistry, biology, and even economics and other human sciences). bernado is emotionally clinging on to a rather simplistic narrative and he pretends to 'know' a metaphysical truth which in itself is the most ridiculous thing. I've never seen an educated person defending a speculative schema like this before.
'life itself emerged'. Life did not emerge. There is no evidence whatsoever for abiogenesis. Science is clueless how life formed on earth. Bernardo does not say the person is made of particles, he says EVERYTHING is a mental construction. He says there is no matter at all. Only Mind.
I'm not a fan of the whole "mind" thing he talks about I'm into Vedanta which says mind is just a product of the brain. Theres the mind and the body. Mind is more subtle than body, but not more special really. The whole point is we are neither of them. We are the blankness that "observes" the mind. Basically awareness/existence. I don't like the word "consciousness" it gets conflated with "mind" But anyways, guys like Bernard and all the new age weirdos use Vedanta to back up their claims about mind when if they understood just the basics of Vedanta, they'd understand that it pretty much says the opposite of what they say about mind
![Coheed and Cambria - Searching for Tomorrow [Official Video]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/hDsYGLbmadg/mqdefault.jpg)
TIMESTAMPS:
0:00 - Introduction
0:10 - Subjective (qualitative) vs objective (quantitative) experience
3:34 - The false mind-matter dichotomy
10:26 - Scientism & Religion
16:32 - Analytic Idealism
21:41 - Objective Idealism vs [Goff's] Panpsychism & other forms of Idealism (e.g. quasi-Berkleyan Idealism etc.)
29:39 - [Karl Popper's] Falsifiability theory (science vs pseudoscience) & its implications for Objective Idealism's explanatory power
41:07 - Idealism vs Illusionism [Seth, Frankish, Graziano, Dennett]
52:41 - Bernardo's Philosophical history of the Mind-Body Problem [Berkeley, Kant, Nietzsche, Schopenhauer, Jung]
1:00:29 - Decoding Carl Jung & Arther Schopenhauer's metaphysics
1:12:03 - Applying Idealism practically in a clinical setting
1:22:58 - Idealism's impact on ethics, morality, spirituality & life after death
1:35:30 - Best counter arguments to Idealism
1:44:00 - How can we take one step closer to the Mind-Body Solution
1:51:42 - Conclusion
THANKS FOR WATCHING!
If you enjoyed the content, please like this video, subscribe to the channel and turn on notifications for future updates. :)
You should check out David Bentley Harts work on this.
Bernardo you mic dropping metaphysical Rockstar, it's an honor to have you as our teacher.
Bernardo was a crucial force who has woken me up from my deep slumber of materialism. And for that I'm very grateful. A revolutionary and giant thinker has arisen.
I listen to Bernardo every single day.
Thanks for this conversation which you have done with such grace, poise and clarity.
Kudos👍
Thank you so much.🙏🏽 I'm really glad you enjoyed it!🙌🏽
Daily dose of useless and nonsensical metaphysical assumptions?
@@connectingupthedots
what do you suggest ?
and what brings you here ?
@@Metanoia99 I thought Chomsky, Robinson and Strawson (among others) settle the matter of consciousness for those who can break out of perception/awareness = soul nonsense.
Thank you for this interview. Bernardo has tons of interviews online, but in this one you have managed to structure the conversation in a way that is very suitable for people who still have no idea about his views. Also thanks a lot for timestamps, they are always very helpful! I am looking forward to your next conversations with him :)
Thank you so much!🙏🏽
I can’t get enough of Kastrup and his theory. I’m hooked.
Dr N -- thanks for encouraging me to give your Kastrup interview a listen. It was worthwhile. :-)
I DO agree with some of what Bernardo says in his criticism of the starting point of materialism. All our starting point data is experiences -- everything else that we "know" is abstract postulations. Many materialists now pretend otherwise -- implying that somehow we have direct access to "know" there is matter. When direct realism is challenged, most materialists will back off on the claim, but then when not challenged, they seem to presume it anyway. If one is not presuming direct realism, than one CANNOT viably pretend we don't have experiences!
I also agree with Bernardo's latest metaphor of a "dashboard" being presented to our consciousness. Yes, our sensor systems collect a lot of data, then it is digested down, and we perceive a very simplified summary, However, rather than a "dashboard" I prefer Eagleman's model of a "stage" -- as what we are presented is far from standardized like a dashboard, and some of what we are presented is just hints and innuendo of something, rather than an actual observation.
I also agree with Bernardo that both dualism and idealism can be empirical, and science. And that the name-calling that physicalists sometimes resort to, is a moral failing on their part.
However, I once more pretty quickly run into a significant dispute with Bernardo over what science is. Bernardo refers to science as being "quantitative". Karl Popper put a great deal of effort into defining what science is, and isn't -- and "quantitative" does not cover the sciences of anthropology, or psychology, or psychology. Much of what science studies is quantitative, but that does not encompass science. Bernardo also presumed that science necessarily was reductive. Yet science can be holistic, emergent, or pluralist -- none of which are reductive. Also, science could be recast into processes rather than objects, per Whitehead, then the reduction could be to a completely orthogonal concept of processes.
Bernardo's view of science was something he referred to several times. AFTER he attacked materialism, and considered it refuted by test cases, he then evaded testing by declaring that his "objective idealism" was "metaphysics" and therefore not quantitative and not subject to testing. BUT -- materialism is also a metaphysical theory, and he claimed it was FALSE!! He also said that any metaphysics that is contradicted, is wrong, -- which is explicitly "testing" He also said that "Objective idealism" matches all data -- which is explicitly a set of predictions that he is saying are confirmed. In my book review of Materialism is Baloney, I noted that Kastrup applied testing to materialism, and claimed it was refuted, but then tried to engage in definitional gamesmanship to try to avoid testing his views. This tactic was continued in your interview.
Popper, of course, did not limit testing to science, just as Bernardo does not. And Popper considered science to just be specialty areas of philosophy, so there should be no difference in procedure that one applies to science vs philosophy. I will just apply Popepr's far clearer understanding of science and philosophy, and their boundaries, and apply testing to Bernardo's views.
I will re-cite the two tests I cited in my book review:
a) if experience is fundamental, and we can reduce our world to them, we should then be able to define and find these experiences. Bernardo says that there are such things as fundamental sweetness, orangeness, fearness, etc. So, we should be able to build up a worldview from these fundamental mental predicates, that would then explain the physical to us. This WAS tested once, as the Phenomenalist movement in the turn of the 1900s also asserted the primacy of mental building blocks. But those early psychologists were unsuccessful in agreeing about what the mental building blocks even were, as the different researchers pronounced their introspection gave different answers from each other. So -- this process of reducing matter to experiences failed one, why should we expect this to be a viable answer today?
b) If the brain is a reflection of mind, then mind should be a set which exceeds brain. But 99% of brain function is unconscious -- IE unconscious brain processing seems to exceed conscious mind by orders of magnitude, contradicting a first order inference from this thesis.
It was not explicit in your interview, but at least at the time of Materialism is Baloney, Bernardo was an advocate of the "filter" theory of mind, in which there is a Mind at Large, and all consciousnesses can access this Mind at Large, and our brain primarily acts as a filter to limit the sensory overload that full contact with Mind at Large would lead to. I will post a set of test cases I proposed to the similar "filter theory" claims of Beyond Physicalism:
Filter Theory of Mind. If Filter theory is true, I would expect the following to be the case:
1. Neruology should be organized primarily to be exclusionary of non-sensory data, rather than integrative and focused on sense data
2. Creatures that lack a sense organ should often be able to compensate with direct knowledge of what is being sensed despite the lack of any sensors
3. Remote viewing and telepathy should be common capabilities, and strong, for humans and animals, and amplified/tuned to be highly effective by evolutionary processes
4. Remote viewing and telepathy should be most apparent in living things with simple neurology
5. Remote viewing and telepathy should be least present in living things with the most complex and largest brains, since in filter theory brains exist to PREVENT these activities.
I think that predictions 1-3 are falsified, 4 and 5 its not as clear, but it is likely they are too.
Recall the reason that Popper advocated for falsifiability rather than verification as the core methodology of science, is that basically everything can find at least SOME verifications. And we humans are basically hard wired to engage in confirmation bias, so a few confirmations are often taken as definitive justification of our views. Bernardo, in this interview, looked for confirmations of idealism. He did not look for falsifications, and in fact denied that he even should!
But the rest of us need to look for falsifications, as there are multitudes of conflicting claims out there, and most are wrong, and we need to sort poor theories from better ones. With just a little effort, i have offered 5-7 falsifications of Bernardo's model. I encourage other readers and listeners to add to this list.
IF Bernardo wants to continue to claim to be doing science, THEN he should be addressing these falsifications as challenges, that his theory must accommodate.
Thanks for checking it out and letting me know your thoughts. This Monday an episode called "A Crash Course in Analytic Idealism" is being released. Bernardo's "Round 2". We address some of the points you brought up (however not all). These comments are great though because I make notes and try and address them in future interviews/conversations. Thanks again!
@@drtevinnaidu DrN -- I am glad you are finding my commentary interesting, and I will look for your second interview with Bernardo. I also heard him invite you to challenge him, so I expect you to be a bit more aggressive in your questions ;-).
You ask your guests who the influences on them were, and my approach to philosophy is primarily based on Socrates and Popper. Socrates taught us to try to identify and examine the walls of the boxes we think within, And Popper taught us to try to identify falsification tests for them.
I tend to read very critically, and put some effort into identifying suspect assumptions that a philosopher or scientist has not been explicit about, then figure out if this assumption is universally valid by doing falsification tests by example.
I have been slowly paging thru your interviews, and fear my critical test cases are too late for most of your second interviews, as they were for Bernardo. :-(
Rounding out my 5 influences, I would add Descartes, the most famous advocate of the most useful modality to address mind/body, and Ben Swett, a gnostic mystic who taught me how to do practical mysticism, plus has the clearest advocacy of a Love Virtue ethic I have found. Final one -- not sure. maybe Popper again, with his emphasis on uncertainty, or Godel with his demonstration of the limits of rationality, or Lakatos with his Research Programme patch to falsifiability (falsifiability is refuted, but remains a good first approximation of how we should act), or the founders of Pragmatism from the 1800s, as the alternative to rationalism.
Bernardo Kastrup is one of the few who enlightened me and I cannot thank them
Too much "light" can blind you !
Lmfao you are not enlightened
He's probably a charlatan.
Our "Round 2" is coming out today. Enjoy🤣😂
I always love listening to Bernardo. This time I was really impressed by the well structured conversation and the good questions on the interviewers side and Bernardos touching honesty and openness even about very private topics on the other side. ♥
Looking very much forward to part 2!
Thank you so much. We're actually busy scheduling another interview right now!😁 Any questions for Bernardo?
@@drtevinnaidu Sure!
Working as an Integral Coach, I'm deep into Ken Wilbers Integral Approach both from a theoretical and practical (application in self-development, spiritual practice and organization development) perspective. So my question to Bernardo would be, how he relates to Ken Wilber and his Integral Model. From my perspective, Analytical Idealism in no way contradicts Wilber (or vice versa), but rather both approaches complement each other perfectly. Maybe Idealism more on the abstract theoretical metaphysical side, Integral Theory more on a broader, integrating and applicable side (I might be wrong, I'm not a studied philosopher).
I'd be curious on the perspective of both of you on this!
Thanks Stefan. I'll definitely look into Ken's work and ask Bernardo his views on the topic. Appreciate it!
@@drtevinnaidu Another topic I find very interesting in relation to Idealism is the whole discussion about homeopathy. You already spoke about the placebo effect, I'd be curious about both of your view on if or how homeopathic substances can possibly work.
@@StefanSchoch They work because your consciousness created them to work.
Resonance, reflection, relationship, reality. Wonderful discussion between two very knowledgable, thoughtful men.
Thank you so much.🙏🏽
Speaking of pilots tripping out when subjected to g forces, the number one cause of pilot accidents today is actually out-of-body experiences. Often the pilots will report themselves as outside the cockpit, or sitting on the wing looking at themselves. (imagine hearing that from a pilot over the airport radio xD)
😱
A few years ago Bernardo opened my eyes to idealism and made me a fan. It's good to see his ideas have not only stood the test of time, but are still evolving along the same trajectory. It's a shame similar non-material idiologies like Panpsychism have been written off as mystisism.
That's purpose of this podcast. An exploration of all ideologies related to consciousness - irrespective of my own views. I hope this channel continues to allow all these diverse views to be explored by those who don't adopt them and flourish for those who do!
Actually Panpsychism is whats gaining ground in universities.
Bernardo points out OFTEN why panpsychism is ridiculous.
I also had a revelation upon hearing Bernardo's views. As a Christian I had always been at odds with the arrogance of scientific atheism, Bernardo's views while not religious per se, do leave room for "God". I can reconcile my idea of God and the universe in Bernardo's world.
@@craigwillms61 There is no inherent conflict between science and the existence of a god.
We like the world to make sense, and it does, but only in terms of the description we affix to it. Then we mistake the description for the world.
Great to see your exploration broaden - Kastrup has a beautiful mind.
The exploration is only just beginning! Glad you're enjoying the journey.
To make it simple: thought is matter. Where thought is not, the mind is not.
And the award for the stupidest metaphysical assumption(s) goes to^
Bernardo's arguements against materialism/physicalism are outstanding. I'm very thankful for his work. That said, his claims that a materialist is less afraid of death than a religious person are shockingly simplistic. He has no data or arguments for this but he stresses it constantly. I have ideas as to why he gets hung up on this but I'm curious to hear a wider range of thoughts.
@Dean Mitchell Hi Dean. I see the point you are making, but it sort of misses what I'm talking about a little bit.
There are certainly some issues that are about resonating with a person's attitude or way of going about things. I get that, fully. To the degree that Bernardo is simply saying, "I personally find materialism to be very relieving," I get it and I also know some people that share that view. I'm not talking about the interesting way that we can all have unique subjective reactions to various world-views. I'm talking about the narrow cases in which Bernardo makes the explicit claim that materialism culturally was a huge relief for people, which is a key motivation for embracing it. When I say that he does not justify this specific generalization, I'm definitely not talking about his personal experience that Idealism makes him more afraid of death. I could have been more clear. Thanks for responding.
@Dean Mitchell
Oh, I agree. Bernardo will be remembered (or not, who knows) for the arguments he makes against physicalism and for analytical idealism. His views about psychology and war and what causes this and that are utterly irrelevant. That said, he has a growing audience, so I think pushing back against claims he repeatedly makes about large swaths of people/groups is fair. But I agree it is nothing compared to dealing with his philosophical/scientific arguments.
By the way, I LOVE the way Benardo talked about illusionism in this talk. In the past, he tends to spend a lot of time speculating on how crazy or greedy these thinkers must be, but today he really found a nice balance.
In my conversations with Keith Frankish, it was very helpful to finally realize that all he is really saying is that most of our IDEAS *about* consciousness are misguided. He fully agrees consciousness is real, he simply points out that we mostly speak about in the wrong way. The problem is that it is so hard to get any attention in philosophy if you don't make your claims as sexy as possible. It certainly makes for great headlines when somebody says consciousness is't real or is an illusion. However, everytime you drill down, you see they aren't dealing with the actual question, they are simply saying that some ideas about consciousness are wrong. I fully sympathize with the need to find an audience and try to speak compellingly.
He's great at regurgitating philosophical speculation on materialism. He's terrible at proposing an alternative. His formulations of idealism are some of the most naive and simplistic out there and the dopes that fall for it are all tripping psychedelics a little too much.
@connectingupthedots
Okay well then name me your top 3 favorite living idealists. I'll show you something really interesting about them.
@@rooruffneck It shouldn't surprise anybody if his arguments are tenuous, he's arguing for a hypothesis that doesn't have a speck of scientific evidence to support it.
The best of two great modern mystics - thank you for your very decent respect for each other- that was the mostly lovely part !
🙏🏽🙌🏽
I really think that we need a complete shift in our social reality.
Two brilliant minds.
Wonderful talk.
Thank you dr. Naidu.
Thank you Andy.🙏🏽
I find that my materialist friends are as equally calm and horrified about the fact of death as my religious/spiritual friends. I think there are utterly no arguments that actually indicate materialism -- on the whole -- creates relief from this fear, just as I see no evidence that -- on the whole -- religious belief causes more fear than deep hope regarding death. We are much more complex with regard to this fear than Bernardo suggests. But I do see how his claims have a tribal resonance in the idealism/materialism war camps.
Fantastic conversation- thank you both for making the time to explore these ideas
Thank you Angelo. I'm glad you enjoyed it!🙏🏽
I've been thinking the same thing as well for some years now but I can't imagine or visualize how mind would make matter. Also "mind" probably isn't a great word to call what we think is fundamental. I think we need a new word and new concepts to discuss this topic. I think this is one of those "We don't know what we don't know" situation.
Another great interview...Binging with Bernardo Kastrup is repetition is recognition and with a varity of host becomes so informative and just awesome. TY
Thank you! Glad you enjoyed it.🙂
@@drtevinnaidu at 79 approaching 80, I am so grateful to be able to Self Realize death is like awakening from a dream. I have believed in our deepest sleep we are closest to God (of our understanding) and our fondest dreams are created by our nightmares. A airplane is off course 80 to 90% of time and always reaches it's destination..When aligned with nature you become aligned. Wishing you Well. I have worked with the dying for 20 years.. and love Nature.
1.27.50 Before material girl ,Madonna,there was another pop-rock icon much more important musically ,imo, in a totally different state of consciousness,who has said:
"“I remember thinking I just want more. This isn’t it. Fame is not the goal. Money is not the goal. To be able to know how to get peace of mind, how to be happy, is something you don’t just stumble across. You’ve got to search for it.”
""It was important to me rather than pursuing an other million dollars,or having another hit record,was to find out who am i,where i have come from and where i am going.. I pursued that led me to India."
-George Harrison
Thanks for having Bernardo!
Thank you!
Sounded like the young and wise old George. Thank you for this.
If there is an objective, purely mental non-physical world out there prior to measurement (which, per Bernard, becomes physical upon measurement), then where is it, given that universal mind is timeless and spaceless? The quantum scientific experiments he talks about are dependent upon physical apparatus that, per Bernard, has no stand-alone objective existence. So how can results from them prove that physical existence only manifests upon, and not prior to, measurement? Moreover, if the physical doesn’t exist prior being measured, how can you measure something that doesn’t exist, and then, magically, have it physically manifest?
Here's a continuation of my response: Just because the universe is in, and of (or derives from), universal consciousness, or mind, does not mean it can't be physical. Matter is nothing but congealed energy, and consciousness is energy (though Bernard doesn't seem to grok this). Hence, the physical is real (even before being measured), and this in no way contradicts universal mind as the all-subsuming primitive.
Finally, the fact that matter, per Bernardo, is not really physical, but simply how we perceive what is mental, implies that our senses are faulty and invalid. If this is the case, then everything everyone knows is faulty and invalid, because all our entire mental knowledge derives from interaction with sense-based phenomena.
Great guest. Thank you for sharing such profound insights and paradigm shift.
Thank you! Glad you enjoyed it.
Excellent discussion! Thank you. Can't wait for your next with Bernardo.
Thank you for watching!🙏🏽
Thanks for the talk but I still have so many questions! How is it one can make progress in, for example, medicine and the natural sciences generally by working on the "representation" of the real thing? A brain, for example, neurons or glia, which are only the appearance on our screen of perception of something mental, mental processes, which through our dissociative barrier (senses) appear to be a brain or neurons?! How is it that science working on "physical stuff" (that are only representations) can find truths, predictions and work through medication and treatments? Thanks Bernardo and Tevin for this great talk! 🌿
Thanks so much for the kind words!
In the Vedanta and Buddhism, which are different, the understanding is that Sat Chit Ananactivity
An aspect of idealism I would like to see examined is what do we extrapolate to be the conditions of Consciousness prior to the Big Bang?
I'm chatting to Bernardo next week for Round 2. I've noted this question, please send me more!🙌🏽
@@drtevinnaidu I have a question... If 50,000 idealists attend a baseball game, do they all simultaneously create the baseball game with their consciousnesses, or do they pick one person to do it?
@@NondescriptMammalthat’s not how Bernardo’s idealism works.
In Vedanta and Buddhism, consciousness is Sat Chit Ananda or Nirvana, and distinct from Mind, states in which no mentation occurs.
The One and Only Materialist in Exsistence,
is the Eternal Life.
the'll criticize you if you change your mind; they'll criticise you if you dont'
The placebo effect is crazy strong as well as the nocebo effect.
An attempted joke. (Do not know what a nocebo is - it may be your original creation.)
So, here goes: 'Things possible - could occur. But there is also every possibility - of something impossible - occurring.' (An idea from Raja Yoga - Ram Chandra)
Wonderful interview! Thank you for posting!
Thank you so much. Glad you enjoyed it!🙏🏽 Lots more to come!
What is your hope for people, Bernado, to use what you share? I think it is important to state what your purpose is. Other than making your case, your argument. Other than people to agree with you or understand it. What is your offering about my friend??
... With love
Looking forward to the next episode, which sounds great. This chapter is also fascinating.
I will point out that if you are looking for historical figures with an idealistic worldview, you can find a significant school of thought in the history of Jewish thought. Spinoza did not emerge from a vacuum...
For example, at the beginning of the twentieth century the leading rabbinic figure in the Jewish people and Zionism - Rabbi Kook - was a philosopher who enthusiastically preached his version of idealism, and so on.
Thank you for adding to the conversation! Glad you're enjoying the content.
@@drtevinnaidu any idea when round 2 happens?
We're still in the process of scheduling all the round 2s. However, they will be coming within the next few months for certain.
Spinoza is my jam, I reference him a lot in my writings and YT channel
At first I wanted to say I think the dashboard analogy is bad because (certainly) if you could see out the windows of the plane, you would do so. So this would indicate there is a benefit to seeing "everything" (through the windows) as opposed to a distilled version (dashboard). I then realized the instruments are giving you MORE information than what you could see out the windows... and at night or in bad weather, they are your only hope... so they should be of primary importance. In other words, while it is true the combination of both windows and dashboard is ultimately the best, the dashboard is ultimately more useful in an arbitrary situation. If planes were subject to natural selection, and making windows was expensive enough, this would favor planes without windows. However, it would not mea that planes with windows and a dashboard (the full view) would be unable to fly, or somehow turn into soup... or be less capable than one without windows.
Criticism is the engine of progress. Yes! More than that, you will never understand that the Mind Matter transformation does occur at every fraction of a second. Therefore the change is happening every fraction of time. So uncertainty and destruction of matter and creating of matter. But we never see the relationship that process has with the Mind. In this world, everything is Mind.
Thanks for this video. Bernardo Kastrup is fantastic ;)
Thank you for watching!😊
Hello guys, what about panenpsychism against panpsychisme ?
We discussed this in great detail in our "Round 2" (link in the description). Enjoy!
You've scientifically disproved materialism? That's quite an accomplishment! Your Nobel is in the mail.
The simplest way to think about this is to realize that Things do not exist, in the sense that “existence” is normally construed. Any Thing is a result of some other Thing. A pencil used to be a tree. What was a tree? So, Things are not “real” because they are becoming perpetually, and existence implies an eternal, or at least a consistent, property.
A body is composed of many Things. Or is it one Thing? It doesn’t matter, does it. There is nothing consistent about it. This is true for all Things.
Now consider your soul, spirit or consciousness. Your awareness itself. These are of a different nature. Even though we live our lives in days, our thoughts, dreams, ambitions and perceptions convince us that we exist as a consistent entity for years and decades. Do we transcend what we really are, or are we really what we think?
54:00 BK speaks about endogenous experiential states vs exogenous (perceptual) experiential states. But then the question arises. Can one even imagine an endogenously experienced state without a simultaneous, or preceded by, some form of perception of an exogenously experienced state? Are endogenous and exogenous qualia at the same ontological level, or is one or the other at a higher level in the hierarchy of experienced patterns?
I respect what you're doing
Thank you Paul! I'm grateful for your support!🙏🏽
I suspect that either consciousness doesn't actually exist; OR consciousness is all that exists.
I also suspect that these two possibilities may be phenomenologically indistinguishable.
I suspect your suspicions may be suspiciously correct.🤔
Hee hee@@drtevinnaidu
pay a tension, so be aware, peace is free.
I’ve read every single published writing by Carl Jung. I would love to converse with others who are a fan or have been influenced by Jung.
Freud tells you to blame Mom, Jung tells you to blame yourself. Nobody ever blames grandpa. :-)
👌🏽😂
have you read The Red Book?
Indeed. And the Black ones too. Have a nice collection at home. Glad you're conversing with Philibuster92. Use this platform to connect with like minded souls!💙
Dr. Naidu, if you're interested in the cutting edge of philosophy applied to psychology, check out what John Vervaeke and friends are doing with his "psyhepathology" series, going on now. Brilliant new models for approaching the issues of consciousness in psychology that you mentioned. Thanks for your efforts!
Thanks so much. John is definitely on my upcoming list of guests. Looking forward to it!
@@drtevinnaidu oh that's awesome!! Looking forward to it. Yea I'm really quite blown away by the detail and proficiency of their discussions in the "psychepathology" project. They're already developing useful models for clinical psychology.
I like Vervaeke...but find him a bit pedantic. I understand that a certain depth of detail is required...still, I wish he were a bit more concise.
@@markupton1417 interesting. I find his way of describing this very down to earth compared to other philosophers, and easy to absorb.
so if my brain is the outside view of my ego mind, then when i'm in meditation and my ego disolves, does my brain also disolve?..Zen masters have no brain?
No brain doesnot dissolve with ego.. 😂
Only ego dissolves and you realize yourself as a being which is alive, conscious, sentient, with a body, mind, intelligence, sensory perceptions and experiences.. Not a person(ego)
I guess I was lucky to grow up in the 50s and 60s when it was OK to be interested in spirituality and be scientific as well.
Using an aircraft as an example of Plato's cave is a good one - but without that dashboard we'd probably be less successful at survival/reproduction.
I wonder if animals need that dashboard or if without being burdened with an ego and "higher" intellectual processes they interact with things as they are more easily?
When I was a kid it never occurred to anyone to cut off blood to the brain... that's crazy!
We'd play the fainting game by hyperventilating, then taking a deep breath, then your friend would wrap their arms around you from behind and squeeze. The hyperoxygenation would make you faint for a few seconds. The only danger was if you fell and hit your head, and usually someone was there to catch you. There's records of this activity going back into antiquity.
Bernardo is correct about consciousness being fundamental however, almost everything after that is his model that has many flaws the biggest being free will ….without free will consciousness doesn’t make sense. free will is foundational for us to make choices and these choices are how we function. He has his one foot firmly planted in materialism, which is completely contradictory to idealism, which is the foundation of consciousness being fundamental.
My view is that the experience of "free will" is, in the same way as "space-time", a useful representation for survival, and does not necessarily exist at the most fundamental level.
@@goran586"My" view is consciousness is fundamental and the main function of consciousness is to makes free will choices that change us for better (evolve) or worse(de evolve).In essence free will is fundamental to consciousnessand if there were no free will choices we are algorithmically programed and our existence serves no purpose.We are all part of a consciousness system/network and our teleology is to evolve.
Dr Kastrup: If “particles” are ripples in the ocean of consciousness- which of itself has no boundaries- then what agent makes those ripples? Do the ripples- as in us humans in particular- have any free will? Are all ripples just directed actors - for a time - in Indra’s dream?
Bernardo often attributes this line of questioning to our innate tendency to reach "closure". But with the metaphysical concept of consciousness and mind-at-large, there is no need for closure. It's all there is. It creates the reality in which you decide to navigate your/our limited egocentric or ego-conscious thoughts in shifting lucid awareness towards one or the other, instead of just existing. Language unfortunately does not help explain it, it's an experiential concept.
Excellent..... thanks 🙏.
Glad you enjoyed it!🙏🏽
Yes, Reality "is" Consciousness. To use a metaphor from the Upanishads, imagine a multitude of clay pots with varying sizes, shapes, and functions, but all made of clay Clay is the Substance (Spinoza's term) all the pots, the Essence being Pure Consciousness. Materialists observe the various sizes and shapes mistakenly believing such appearances to be fundamental. However, logic and mathematics will not get you to a direct nondual experience of the underlying reality. There are various methods for doing this derived from ancient Buddhism and Hinduism. Shankara's Advaita Vedanta (788-820) covers the topic quite well with predicates going back to Aristotle, Plato, Plotinus, and Nargajuna (150-250), as well to Lao Tzu..
Thank you for this!🙏🏽
What Bernardo is saying is exactly what i have felt during my satori/enlightment. Objective idealism is the truth about our universe. You dont have to believe me, you can try it out for yourself by meditating. (use psychedelics for faster/easier progress) 😂🎉
The guy is an absolute class act. It’s probably my third comment on this podcast but I just watched it again.
He also happens to be right.
I wonder what he makes of people like Manly P Hall, or even people like joe Dispenza who has been helping people bring about spontaneous healing. Very much like Jesus and Buddha have been two of the greatest “molders” of this “VR world.”
It’s like there are cheat codes/Easter eggs for the “dashboard.”
I’d like to know how he compares these capabilities with psychedelics? Are they different sides of the same coin, or two different phenomena
Thanks again. Donald Hofmann is next! Have another free hour or so
❤
Thanks so much man! I'll ask him about this next time. Glad you're enjoying the content so much and enjoy Don!!!
I don’t think psychedelic research Implies what I think he’s suggesting. There may be a reduction in neuronal activity globally but I think the perceived expansion of consciousness will map onto a particular suite of complex novel neuronal behaviour
I don't think it's the slam dunk he thinks it is either. We need more data.
Psychedelic research demonstrates an expansion of the lamina layer in our cortex ie an increase in communication between areas of the cortex
Eating the recognizable and mostly unaltered carcasses of other kinds of "alters" seems to be the healthiest way to eat.
My brain screams at me presuppositionist because the way he argues . What presups usually do is, assume the conclusion , then gaslight , special plead , and complete the circle . Coming merely from the scientific method as a base , he have the observations, he have the hypothesis, but no way to test for it in order to confirm or deny it is the case - unfelsifible claim . Metaphysical realism sounds very similar to simulation theory , brain in a jar and other claims alike .Here is where my shtick is . Let's assume that any of those ideas are the case . So what ? Untill we have a way out , " cheat code" of sorts or work around , we remain bound to its laws and are to deal with it on the daily .Although fun to ponder it is of no use 🤷🏻♂️
@Dean Mitchell again , materialism is merely a laible that reffers to what we experience as reality, regardless of what it actually is. So it cannot be flawed . The rest of things you listed are found in ppl whom do not hold the worldview of metaphysical realism, meaning , one needs not to adopt those beliefs, in order to posses those qualities. The whole thing is just an addon that is extra to anything else we already have knowlage of and on top of it all , is unfelsifible claim . Just see no use of it in my life 🤷🏻♂️
@Dean Mitchell So we don't work with certainty, but levels of confidence. Knowlage is the highest of confidences we can have about a thing , based on facts about reality, regardless of opinion and regardless of what reality actually is . We have learned to understand its workings ( for the most part ) and find it relible , as evident by the progress achieved so far . So the scientific method is the most reliable method trough which we obtain knowlge . That is not to say it is perfect , or that there aren't other methods that might work , being though not as reliable. The point is , since has become the " go to " , when it comes to confidence in understanding of how the " reality we are bound by , works . As you said though , I agree , if it works for you , so be it
@Dean Mitchell Is science- the most reliable method for determining of what is true, cannot tell us of what reality is , it'll be anyone's guess. After all , if we don't know , we don't know . Let's not fill the gaps in our knowlage with unfelsifible claims it is pointless
@Dean Mitchell I respect ending conversations with ad hominem 👌 Fair enough , live long and prosper 🙌
Bernardo is doing metaphysics...which is trickier than science. But saying that "So what," because you don't see an immediate payoff is shortsighted. Likewise, saying that it's "unfalsifiable" and therefore not worthy of pursuit is unscientific.
One week before the Wright brothers first flight the most prominent scientist in the world said that humans would NEVER achieve heavier than air flight.
I can't imagine how many "impossible" things have been done.
He states very early on that he believes that he is surrounded by a world consisting of matter ("in the colloquial sense"). So how is he not a "materialist"? This is exactly what a typical materialist believes. He then proceeds to go through a lot of verbal and intellectual gymnastics to contend that materialism is something else, in order to refute it. I am so confused by this.
"the cat doesn't KNOW that he's tasting the food" ~ this sounds like a preference of belief, not a provable fact. by degrees. have you never seen a cat exhibit a preference? Bernardo needs to spend some time witnessing interesting examples of what sometimes appears to be a sort of 'higher consciousness' in certain examples animals. Including animals seeming to appear to have very human-like / soul-like / extra-aware interaction/expression with this world...
"Pay attention" ;>
Ergo mind is matter :-)
"The first thing is that in this world, matter and consciousness are not two separate things. What we call matter is consciousness asleep, and what we know as consciousness is matter awakened. In reality matter and consciousness are not different; they are different manifestations of the same thing. Existence is one, and that one is godliness or brahman or whatsoever you want to call it. When that one is asleep it appears as matter, and when awake it is consciousness. So don’t treat matter and consciousness as separate entities; they are only utilitarian terms. They are not really different.
Even science has come to the conclusion that there is no such thing as matter. How amusing it is that fifty years ago Nietzsche declared that God is dead, and fifty years from now science will have to declare that God may or may not be dead but matter is certainly dead. As science goes deeper and deeper into matter it finds that matter is no more and only energy remains, only energy is.
What remains after the explosion or splitting of the atom is only particles of energy. And what we know as electrons, protons and neutrons are particles of electricity. In fact, it is not correct to call them particles, because particles imply matter. The scientists had to find a new word, which is quanta, which has a different connotation altogether. Quanta is both a particle and a wave. It is difficult to comprehend how something could be both a particle and a wave simultaneously, but quanta is both. Sometimes it behaves as a particle - which is matter; and sometimes it behaves as a wave - which is energy. Wave and energy are behaviors of the same quanta.
When science dug deep it found that only energy is, and when spirituality delved deep it found that only spirit or atman or soul is. And soul is energy. The time is just around the corner when a synthesis of science and religion will be achieved, and the distance that separates them will simply disappear. When the gap between matter and truth has proved to be false, the gap between science and religion cannot exist for long. If matter and consciousness are not two, how can religion and science be two? The separation of science and religion was dependent on the separation of matter and consciousness.
To me, only one is; two simply don’t exist. There is no place for duality; so the question of matter and consciousness does not arise. If you like the language of matter, you can say that everything is matter. And if you like the language of consciousness, you can say that everything is consciousness. I for one prefer the language of consciousness. Why do I prefer it? Because, in my view, one should always prefer the language of the higher, which has greater potential; one should not prefer the language of the lower, where potential is less and less.
We can, for instance, say that only the seed is, and not the tree. And it is not incorrect to say that, because the tree is only a transformation of the seed. But there is a danger involved in this statement. The danger is that some seeds may say, “If we are seeds all the way, then why seek to become trees? We will remain as we are; we will remain seeds.”
So it is better if we say that only trees are, and not seeds. Then the possibility for the seed to become a tree remains. I prefer the language of consciousness, so that what is asleep can awaken - this possibility should be available.
There is a similarity between the materialist and the spiritualist; both of them accept only one - either matter or consciousness. But there is a difference too. While the materialist accepts the first thing and is thus deprived of the ultimate, the spiritualist accepts the ultimate which includes the first in it. It is all-inclusive; it does not exclude. I love the language of spirituality, and therefore I say that everything is consciousness. Consciousness asleep is matter, and consciousness awakened is consciousness. All is consciousness."
212 like an immune system
Space time is doomed
He seems to know much more than he speaks
This is true.
He seems to not know of what he speaks
Have you ever wondered why intelligent peoples cling to so many different beliefs? A mathematician believes reality IS maths, a physicist believes reality is a pantheon of laws and equations ruling over a zoo of particles, amongst philosophers and theists so much variety of beliefs. Have you noticed that all their beliefs in one way or another are constructed (they were not born with them:) these beliefs (constructions/house of cards) are defended by these intelligent peoples have you noticed? Could be a priest a guru a physicist a philosopher a neuroscientist even your mum or dad:) Have you noticed how none of them want to let go of their beliefs, their models, their interpretation of reality/truth at all costs? Surely they can not all be correct? I have a name for this behaviour it’s called SELF DECEPTION :) self deception is your biggest obstacle to Truth, Truth being “that which is the case” . I suggest all these super intelligent peoples you interview are all self deceived. The reason 99.9 % of peoples are self deceived about reality/truth/that is survival. Humans evolutionary success is because we can not just bullshit ourselves, but we can group together and share bullshit (culture:). Truth will kill you :) it’s not something trivial :)
totally agree. I'm writing about this right now actually, our belief systems act like anchoring points for our ego. And our egos are directly tied to survival mechanisms via comparison of onesself to others.
@@polymathpark fascinating subject :)
@@polymathpark my 2 cents:) the ego, YOU are an idea 💡:) it started when you was a child and someone gave you a toy you said "MY toy" :) me my MINE! That's all YOU are:) you are an idea that has high jacked an impersonal subjective field of subjectivity and its activity :)
@@mrbwatson8081 nice. We do go through a very definite phase of possession between 2-3 years of age, where we deem everything we can see and touch as "mine"... The terrible two's lol
@@polymathpark I learned a lot about my ego with magic mushrooms:) a few years ago I took a big dose I was in my living room on my sofa. I sat with my eyes closed waiting for the effects but the whole time I was waiting I was just begging and begging almost 😢 asking myself what am I? An about 3 hours later I came out the trip woke my girlfriend up frantically yelling at her "EVERYTHING IS ME! I AM NOTHING:) I kept repeating it I had literally experienced Everything being me :) sounds mad but it's true;)
The answer lies in physicalism, specifically in eliminative materialism. Read the work of Paul and Patricia Churchland.
Sings: “It ain’t necessarily so...” 🎤
@@TheWorldTeacher We will just have to disagree...but you can't dismiss a whole school of philosophical thought by saying it ain't necessarily so...let's have a counter argument.
@@Doctor.T.46
Sings: “It ain’t necessarily so...” 🎤
@@TheWorldTeacher Still no counter argument. You are being disrespectful...and highlighting your lack of understanding of philosophical or scientific perspectives. My guess is that your just a RUclips charlatan.
@@TheWorldTeacher I think your rudeness is due to the fact that you don't even know what eliminative materialism is. In fact I don't think you know anything about philosophy...just your own perverse opinions...based on nothing but your own imagination.
A novel lie became a truth after time.
Do elaborate :)
Knew Descartes' dichotomy was b.s. when first reading him in '74.
He's regurgitating Nietzsche here....
Tiring.
Wow! You're not even close and yet publicly comment. Amazing....
@@markupton1417 . I'm dead on ryt, ultimately. Watch it again.
@@markupton1417 . It's exactly what it is.
I'm watching this amazing interview with this in background ruclips.net/video/BDwAlto-NKU/видео.html
has a totally different sens
💆🏻♂️
Schopenhauer was another reductionist. Poor poodles. And it was good that Schop didn’t have kids, imagine three Johns or three Clementines. This kind of thinking is even dangerous from a social point of view.
wow, Haven't listen to such bad philosophy for years! I thought we were done making unfalsifiable claims about reality by declaring abstract concepts as "beings" or agents while they are nothing more that labels for actual processes in nature.
Philosophy is useless nonsense. And this guy sounds like the "It's only a game why you have to get mad" clip.
Superficially, Bernardo Kastrup SEEMS to be promulgating the most ancient spiritual teaching of Advaita Vedanta (as found in the Upanishadic texts of India) but due to reasons I won't go into at length here, his understanding is rather flawed.
If one carefully listens to any of his monologues or interview videos, it is obvious (at least it is obvious to those who are truly enlightened) that he regularly confuses and conflates discrete consciousness (as emerging from the neural networks of animals) and UNIVERSAL Consciousness (which is the all-pervasive, eternal ground of all being, more appositely termed "The Tao", "Brahman" or "Infinite Awareness").
He also believes in (limited) freedom of volition, which is, of course, ludicrous, and his understanding of suffering is truly infantile, which is unfortunate, since the eradication of suffering is the goal of life.
In order to PROPERLY understand the distinction between the two aforementioned categories of consciousness, you are welcome to email me for a copy of "A Final Instruction Sheet for Humanity", which are the most authoritative and accurate precepts extant. My address is on my RUclips homepage.
However, my main criticism of Kastrup is not with his metaphysics, it is, rather, his METAETHICS. He is, objectively speaking, afflicted with a demonic mentality, as demonstrated with his support of all things contrary to Dharma (the law, and societal duties), such as egalitarianism, feminism, homosexuality, and socialism.
In a recent interview, for example, he displayed abject ignorance when discussing the topic of animal consumption. Hopefully, he will one day realize how incredibly hypocritical he is in this regards, and become a compassionate VEGAN. 🌱
After all, to criticize Bernardo for his teachings being only, let's say, ninety percent accurate, would be silly, since, compared with almost every other person who has ever lived, his philosophical understanding is fairly sound. Yet, what is the point of being even TOTALLY correct about metaphysics, when one's metaethics and normative ethics is fundamentally flawed?
Furthermore, Bernardo has admitted that he has struggled with mental health issues for several decades. I would suggest he flee to the loving arms of an ACTUAL spiritual master in order to learn Dharma (as well, of course, correct his flawed metaphysics).
Peace!
You sound jealous and egotistical 🤮
When did Bernardo ever say consciousness “emerges” 🫢🤥
Bernardo says a neural network is an image or representation of a process in consciousness. According to Bernardo a neural network IS consciousness. Bernardo has NEVER claimed consciousness “emerges” 🤭
@@mrbwatson8081, where did I make such an accusation, Slave?
Loving the engagement! Keep the conversation flowing!🙌🏽
Bernado makes silly philosophical errors that people have already addressed and successfully attempted to resolve in the past. He says that the representation of the perceiver (the subject) is made of particles but not the referent of this representation itself. That goes against the entire history of science and the assumptions that medical practices presuppose. The treatment for cancer is not devised based on any kind of holistic idea of the body, but on the particular atomistic characteristics of the cancerous cells and their reactive potentials to different kinds of chemicals. If he claims these little cells are in themselves representations of mental processes, then why not just admit the panpsychist claim that every cell in one's body is also primordially mental and consequently physical (to put it in Whitehead's terminology). He throws out the reality of the physical without reasonable justification (just an anti-realist interpretation of QM does not cut it, because Bernado clearly doesn't understand Bohmian mechanics as evident from his blog posts). The latter seems to account for radically emergent phenomena while avoiding the old problem of teleology. I mean, life itself emerged and survives due to radically contingent events like the formation of water, a compound constituted of hydrogen and oxygen atoms. Engineer-turned-Metaphysicians like him should be careful about being too confident, because he's clearly overlooking a whole range of 'matter' that sciences other than physics are concerned with (like chemistry, biology, and even economics and other human sciences). bernado is emotionally clinging on to a rather simplistic narrative and he pretends to 'know' a metaphysical truth which in itself is the most ridiculous thing. I've never seen an educated person defending a speculative schema like this before.
'life itself emerged'. Life did not emerge. There is no evidence whatsoever for abiogenesis. Science is clueless how life formed on earth.
Bernardo does not say the person is made of particles, he says EVERYTHING is a mental construction. He says there is no matter at all. Only Mind.
Just listen to a mainstream XX century scientist to find a well educated person defend an even more speculative scheme 😂
I don’t understand what you wrote . ELI5
If you didnt understand the written above, then theres no chance you've understood anything bernards said :D@@Jay-kk3dv
I'm not a fan of the whole "mind" thing he talks about
I'm into Vedanta which says mind is just a product of the brain. Theres the mind and the body. Mind is more subtle than body, but not more special really.
The whole point is we are neither of them. We are the blankness that "observes" the mind. Basically awareness/existence. I don't like the word "consciousness" it gets conflated with "mind"
But anyways, guys like Bernard and all the new age weirdos use Vedanta to back up their claims about mind when if they understood just the basics of Vedanta, they'd understand that it pretty much says the opposite of what they say about mind